6.  The first applicant was a minority shareholder of six forestry companies. On 8 February 2002 these companies, together with seven others, signed an asset-sharing agreement (smlouva o fứzi) in order to wind up these companies and transfer all their assets to company C. The agreement laid out rules for the apportionment of the newly issued shares in company C. and the amounts that the existing shareholders would receive in compensation for the liquidated shares. The basis upon which the new shares would be allocated and the amounts to be given in settlement were based on an opinion drawn up by experts appointed by the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) on 27 June 2001 at the request of the companies concerned.
7.  The agreement also included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement with the share allocation ratio or the amounts in settlement was to be decided in arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. (“Company for Auctions and Arbitrations”), a private limited liability company incorporated under Czech law which maintains a register of arbitrators and lays out rules for arbitration.
8.  The first applicant, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation he received, brought an action under Article 220p § 4 of the Commercial Code against company C. whereby he asserted that this amount was inadequate and claimed a further 1,499,535 Czech korunas (CZK) (60,858 euros (EUR)).
9.  On 5 May 2004 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the agreement.
10.  The first applicant appealed, arguing that as a minority shareholder he had not voted for the asset-sharing agreement and had therefore never consented to the arbitration clause. He argued that the denial of the Brno Regional Court to hear the case had amounted to a violation of his right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.
11.  On 29 March 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision, holding that the fact the applicant had personally never consented to the arbitration was immaterial because the agreement, including the arbitration clause, was nevertheless valid.
12.  On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that the arbitration clause was binding on all shareholders of the companies which were a party to the agreement. The court did not find a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, holding that the opportunity afforded to the applicant to take his dispute to arbitration safeguarded his property rights as a shareholder.
13.  On an unspecified date a general meeting of company C. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder. On 9 December 2003 the court administering the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) approved the transfer. The amount of compensation the first applicant received was based on an opinion given by an expert on 8 September 2003 who was appointed by the Brno Regional Court but chosen and paid for by company C.
14.  The contract between company C. and the majority shareholder for the transfer of all its assets included a clause providing for the settlement of any disputes regarding the compensation paid to the minority shareholders by arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer was passed at the general meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder.
15.  On 18 February 2004 the first applicant brought an action whereby he asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate and claimed a further amount. He claimed CZK 50 (EUR 2.03) instead of CZK 7.899 (EUR 0.32) he had been awarded for each of his 70,380 shares.
16.  On 27 April 2004 the Brno Regional Court terminated the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer agreement.
17.  On 30 November 2004 the Olomouc High Court upheld that decision, finding no violation of the first applicant’s right of access to court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding, even for the applicant, by virtue of Article 220k(1) of the Commercial Code. It further held that arbitration decisions were subject to a court review, albeit a limited one, and that the disputes over compensation were primarily a technicality.
18.  On 18 July 2006 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of law, agreeing with the lower courts.
19.  On 8 February 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the arbitration clause was valid even for him (as a minor shareholder) and that the arbitrators were independent and obliged to comply with the law. Furthermore, the court did not find a violation of the first applicant’s property rights holding that the procedure by which the amounts of compensation were calculated was based on an expert opinion and it could have been reviewed in arbitration proceedings.
20.  The applicants were minority shareholders of company H. On 28 August 2006 a general meeting of company H. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder. On 15 September 2006 the court administering the Companies Register approved the transfer. The amount of compensation the applicants received, CZK 148,808 (EUR 6,039) for the first applicant and CZK 77,748 (EUR 3,155) for the second applicant, was based on an opinion given by an expert appointed by the Ostrava Regional Court on 12 April 2006 but chosen and paid for by company H.
21.  The contract between company H. and the majority shareholder for the transfer of all assets to it included a clause providing for the settlement of any disputes regarding compensation paid to the minority shareholders by arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer was passed at the general meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder. The first applicant voiced his disagreement with the arbitration clause during the general meeting.
22.  On 21 November 2006 the applicants brought an action whereby they asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate and claimed a further amount without specifying the exact sum.
23.  On 5 January 2007 the Brno Regional Court terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer agreement.
24.  On 20 March 2007 the Olomouc High Court upheld the decision.
25.  On 9 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its previous decision concerning the first applicant from 8 February 2007 as mentioned above.
26.  The applicants were minority shareholders of company M. On 23 July 2007 a general meeting of company M. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder. On 2 October 2007 the court administering the Companies Register approved the transfer. The amount of compensation the applicants received, CZK 241,607 (EUR 9,805) for the first applicant and CZK 47,110 (EUR 1,912) for the second applicant, was based on an opinion given by an expert appointed by the court but chosen and paid for by the majority shareholder.
27.  The contract between company M. and the majority shareholder, signed by the same person for both entities, for the transfer of all assets to the majority shareholder included a clause providing for the settlement of any disputes regarding the compensation paid to the minority shareholders by arbitration conducted by a certain Mr F. in a procedure analogous to the procedure held before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer was passed at the general meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder.
28.  On 13 December 2007 the applicants brought an action whereby they asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate and claimed a further amount without specifying the exact sum.
29.  On 11 March 2008 the Brno Regional Court terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer agreement.
30.  On 12 June 2008 the Olomouc High Court upheld that decision, finding no violation of the applicant’s right of access to court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding, even for the applicants, by virtue of Article 220k(1) of the Commercial Code. It further held that arbitration decisions were subject to a court review, albeit a limited one, and that the disputes over compensation were primarily a technicality.
31.  On 4 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its previous decisions concerning the same matter.